Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming the system

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. This is the consensus of the discussion, as I see it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and the article besides its definition is merely an example farm of unrelated examples that are better off examined in articles like cheating or corruption. It is tough to make sense of it, due to how seemingly random and far from each other each example is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, WP:NOTDICTIONARY as nom said. Second, every single source is either unreliable (a PDF of a slide deck, conference proceedings) or a passing example of someone using the phrase in a radically different context. Third, many of the examples are either unsourced or disconnected from each other, WP:SYNTH. And while "gaming the system" might be a specific form of cheating, we just can't have an article without an in-depth source on what makes this form of cheating distinct; a bunch of cherry-picked uses of the term aren't going to cut it. (And I find it hard to believe nobody ever used this term before 1975...a claim sourced to the aforementioned conference proceedings). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. No time to do a WP:BEFORE search myself, but assuming this is not notable as a separate topic WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered. Aside from the first one, I don't see what's wrong with the secondary sources of the first paragraph. And sentence two to five are not at all what would fit into a dictionary definition but rather historical or analytical commentary. So contrary to the main point of the nomination, this does not fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. So even if the rest were WP:SYNTH, which I have not time to look into, sentences two to five should be WP:PRESERVEd. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. This subject does not meet WP:GNG to be suitable for a standalone article. Jtwhetten (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what some sock was up to, check the history--it's not worth keeping it here, not even struck through. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the strangest thing I have seen people using socks for. Northern Moonlight 22:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was ironic, given the subject. They were trying to "game the system". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (or Keep) with a clear link to Letter and spirit of the law and maybe renaming to Gaming the system (law) in case of disambiguation. Article should be clearer if the disambiguation splits the article into several non-overlapping topics. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. That article couldn't exist as standalone because of insufficient reliable sources to back. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed blocking this sock: Playing the system (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no doubt this does not meet GNG, but several !votes above suggest merge as an ATD, and ATDs are usually preferred. However, welcome as such suggestions are, I don't see why this subject (which is not so much one subject as any subject where system gaming/rule bending is possible) should be chosen for a redirect. If someone were to search on this term, I think it would be odd to land on a "letter and spirit of the law" page, rather than to be presented by a list of pages where the term may be found. So I don't think the redirect is helpful, and I don't see what content on this page could be safely and beneficially merged there. I think this is a case where straight deletion is preferable to the ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. AKK700 15:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Abuse#Gaming the system, which appears to be this article's parent? or No Child Left Behind Act#Gaming the system? or Loophole? or Game theory? or Behavioral game theory? or Strategy (game theory)? or Cheating? or Cheating in online games? or Gamification? Why are we settling on this one page for merge when 4150 wikipedia pages discuss gaming the system in hundreds of contexts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy🏄, I don't mean to be speaking for the editor but this article is mentioned by other editors in this discussion as a Merge target article. That's probably why it was selected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My question is to all editors contributing to this discussion. I don't see why that is the appropriate merge target. Is it being chosen because of an anchoring effect following its first mention? See my !vote directly above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.